The Hawaiian gazette., 1887-05-10

The defendants answer denies that
the conveyance to Queen Emma was
of the nature of a mortgage, and that
Keawekolohe continued to retain pos
session as owner. Admits that Mr..
Dowsett took assignments of the two
mortgages and deed from Queen
Emma, but denies that he took it
knowing it to be intended for mort
gage and that he so treated it.
It disclaims knowledge of the con-
tribution of money by the relatives of
Albert Trask, and the payment of the
mortgages by Moekauhane and ale
ges that he the defendant furnished
the money and paid off the mortgage.
The answer further denies with great
particularly knowledge of all the
material averments of the bill, but it
does not appear to me necessary to
enlarge this opinion by setting out
further abstract.
By THE COURT. The only evidence
in support of defendants denial and
averments is his own testimony. In
nv view the deed from Mr.. Dowsett
upon which is based his title goes far
to contradict him. The grantees are
Moekauhane (w), and Pakiko: the con
sideration is one dollar. Now if the
deed to Queen Emma was not treated
as mortgage, and her deed to Mr..
Dowsett likewise, and if Pakiko only
paid off the mortgages why should he
several years after ask, and Mr.. Dow
sett give him gratuitously deed of
of the land, and if Pakiki paid all the
money to and did all the business
with Mr.. Dowsett why should the
grant be made jointly to Moekauhane,
whose name is first in the deed.
But we have the testimony of Mr..
Dowsett very distinct and explicit,
that he did not consider the deed from
Queen Emma as anything but an adj
ditional security, that he never took
possession of the land and that when
the sums due on the first and second
mortgages were paid he had no fur
ther equitable claim on the land. He
testifes that the money was paid him
by Moekauhane, whom he well knew,
and not by Pakiko; and that when
after a long delay and neglect of the
parties, Moekauhane requested him
to give her deed of the premises; he
gave it to her and joined Pakiko at
her request. He testifes that Moe
kauhane always transacted the bust
ness respecting the payments in the
attitude of one acting for others with
her, for the family The evidence of
many credible witnesses abundantly
proves that Pakiko was cognizant of
the contributions made for the pay
ment of the mortgages. He himself
has shown this by sundry payments
he had made to contributors, for
which he shows receipts. He alleges
and he testifes that he made the
payments of the mortgages. He shows
receipts purporting to be from Moe
kauhane for $3.50, $50 and SO, con
tributed toward the payment of the
mortgages; as a witness to receipts he
signs his own name. These papers
and all the signatures are to appear
ance in the same handwriting [
doubt their genuineness. But it is
inconsistent with Pakiko's testimony
and claim that he did the business
with and paid the money to Mr.
Dowsett, that he should have paid it
to Moekauhane; nor do these amounts
make up the amounts which were paid
to Mr.. Dowsett. Who paid the rest?
Why does not Pakiko Show receipts
from Mr. Dowsett? He was very par
ticular and formal about receipts as
these thus shown and some others
which he exhibits for payments which
he testifes that he made to some of
the contributors, so that he should be
able to show receipts from Mr. Dow
sett if he ever dealt with him.
l find that the answer of Pakiko
and his testimony are false 1t is my
opinion, Qeaving the question of
whether he contributed any thing to
the fund an open one), that he took
advantage of his knowledge of what
had been done, and of the affection of
Moekauhane his paramour, and so in
duced her to procure the deed from
Mr.. Dowsett to her and himself, well
reckoning that Mr.. Dowsett might
consider that what Moekauhane re-
quested would be proper.
[ will sign decree in accordance
with the prayer of the bill.
Kinney & Peterson Attorneys for
plaintiffs; NJ. Thompson Attorney for
defendants.
Honolulu, October 18th, 1856.
Snpreme Court of the Hawaiian ISL